On 8/21/2012 2:28 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2012-08-21T00:22:00, Dimitri Maziuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> CLUSTERIP ... > Some customers want to do this for a simple load balancing solution that > doesn't require additional load balancing hosts. It's not the worst idea > for 2-3 nodes, especially with an asymmetric connection profile (i.e., > little data in, lots of data out).
<shrug/> I fail to see the advantage over, say, RRDNS, or heartbeat+ldirectord, but that's just me. (@Andrew: it is a fascinating intellectual excersize, I didn't say it was stupid in itself.) > I have a preference for active/passive clusters as long as that remains > feasible, since that makes the architecture simpler. But once one goes > beyond that, it's nice to have options. Yeah, sure. Original Poster asked what's the point of an active-active cluster without the same ip address on all nodes and my answer is still "tcp/ip doesn't work that way". Pointing him to clusterip, anycast, and whatever other clever tricks people came up with is IMO the opposite of helpful. Dima _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
